On Jan 19, 2009, at 1:34 PM, George Lottermoser wrote:
> feeling a little relief that after looking often
> you find more to appreciate in the images.
> I'd expect that if we saw some 11x14 or 16x20 prints
> we may even find more to appreciate in them
> (and I don't mean on glossy newsprint stock with a poorly registered
> process dot).
>
> I certainly wouldn't refer to them as "great" portraits
> or superb photographs.
> Yet (for me), they contain some fascinating visual qualities;
> expressing a some what humbled (un-glorified),
> yet respectful human condition.
>
> We, on this list, look at a hell of a lot of photographs;
> how much time do we actually spend on each viewing?
>
> I find that on some days a post may look, to me, rather dull.
> The next day it may (or may not) resonate more.
>
> Somewhat regularly I do self portraits
> to test a lighting set up, an ASA setting or
> just to see "how I look today."
>
> Many times I feel shocked by how I look;
> but also fascinated by my own reality,
> vulnerability and slow disintegration.
> I rarely have the courage
> to publicly post these "tests"on a screen or print;
> even though some of them have a certain raw power.
>
> Rather than "wimpy"
> I believe it took (and always takes) a certain amount of courage
> on everyone's part (photographer, subjects, editors)
> to try something a little "off."
I still not altogether with you George,
we've been seeing our politicians look like deer in the headlights for
the last 8 years...
I am not convinced that this "deer in the headlights" photographic
approach was either creative, necessary, or even courageous...
Steve
>
>
> The glamour assembly line
> could certainly have been employed;
> as it is every single day
> ad nauseum.
>
> Regards,
> George Lottermoser
> george@imagist.com
>http://www.imagist.com
>http://www.imagist.com/blog
>http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Steve Barbour wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 19, 2009, at 11:26 AM, George Lottermoser wrote:
>>
>>> and with equal respect to you Steve
>>> nothing wimpy about
>>> attempting to work within those restraints
>>
>> I wanted to respond George, but before doing so I again went
>> through all of these photos...
>>
>> I must say that this time, after 3-4 previous looks... I appreciate
>> more these images...
>>
>> The subjects still decide how they want to be seen, they pose, and
>> that was the idea, even encouraging "bring something to include in
>> the photo" but I am bothered by the fact that they insist they
>> wanted to let the subject pose as wished, yet when Axelrod posed
>> with cookies, the photographers chose not to show that image, as
>> "it almost didn't look real" "it was too silly"...
>>
>> so they set their own editorial limits, controls on what was
>> acceptable/permissable...sadly a lapse, I think...
>>
>>
>> maybe they simply wanted us to mull over and talk about these
>> photos, just as we are...
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ;
>>> especially with the subject a person I neither know
>>> nor will have the time to get to know.
>>> (as any working photographer
>>> who's been assigned a few moments
>>> with an exec or CEO can attest)
>>>
>>> In many cases
>>> it's easier to apply
>>> learned, professional tactics
>>> to produce the flattering portrait,
>>> complete with more dramatic lighting,
>>> and corporate backgrounds
>>> to add (perhaps superficial) content.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> George Lottermoser
>>> george@imagist.com
>>> http://www.imagist.com
>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>>> Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 19, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Steve Barbour wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:38 AM, George Lottermoser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> one can only guess:
>>>>> 1) a catalog of Barack Obama's top advisers, aids and members of
>>>>> his incoming administration
>>>>> 2) without flattery or suggestive environments
>>>>> 3) each within a very limited time frame
>>>>> 4) and in quite a number of different locations
>>>>> 5) while maintaining a consistent look across the collection
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> with respect George, to your efforts to come up with some kind of
>>>> an adequate explanation...
>>>>
>>>> these sound awfully wimpy to me...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> George Lottermoser
>>>>> george@imagist.com
>>>>> http://www.imagist.com
>>>>> http://www.imagist.com/blog
>>>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
>>>>> Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Steve Barbour wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> what were they trying to accomplish?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
>>>>> information
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
>>>> information
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information